Top-opolis

[Pure]

Hi pierced boy,

you said,


On de Sade and orgasm
It seems to me J that there are many possiblities and that those excepts you have provided us with reflect only a monority woops minority. I will leave tha typo there, iy could be a good word to use latter

If we all experence things such as "proves that he experienced orgasm as if it were an epileptic seizure, something aggressive and murderous, like a fit of rage." then it is hard to see how we continue as a race. we would bed all dead from orgasm induced pyschotic behaviour and well.

What I can see is that orgasm indeed the sexual act is one of the most primitive acts we have( though most refine it for recreational purposes) as humans. It is said by biologists that pelvic thrusting during orgasm is the last vestage of instinctive behaviour. Now I wont try to defend that because I don't know but it seems possible.

Personaly sexual release can be many things and sometimes I growl but I never feel murderous. Just me, de sade was obviously different . Was his experence the mean or some extreme. I think the latter.

H

Hi, interesting thoughts. Of course, we now question arguments from 'what Nature says/wants' or 'what Nature's laws intend.' The RC church says Nature intends sex only for reproduction.

This could be taken also as an argument against umbrellas, for clearly Nature intended that we get wet when outside in the rain!

So let's propose that Sade is really saying "Sex is especially fulfilling when it's mixed with cruelty." or "If you really want to get off, you should intermix sex, and anger and/or cruelty [whether as doer or do-ee]." What say you?

Now, if you have any dominant or submissive practices, don't you have to agree with this? Are you in a position to disagree?

J.

btw, haven't you seen any bodily reactions a bit more than 'pelvic thrusting'? do you recall the line of Woody Allen "Sex isn't dirty.... unless it's done right"?

 

[pierced_boy]

I do not have to agree

There is much more to our physical existense than proposed by de Sade.

Clearly we(humans) take aspects of life further than is necessary for survival. There is a considerable range that includes DS practises that is not actually anti social. Feeling and being murderous or anything near this steps over that line. That line for me can be drawn with a lot of artistic licence. There is a lot of head space to explore before brutality becomes acceptable or imaginable-- for me.

To propose that for most it otherwise challenges the boundaries of what I know and I suspect for most people.

At the end of the day de Sade and his ilke are only a microcosm of the whole (written) society over all of time since the bible was Baldlerized (spelling???).

Woody Allen by his own admission is under educated and I treat his assertions with that in mind.

Sex is done right when it is done right and dirt has little to do with it unless you like mud and sex mixed. Then it is dirty fun.

H

 

[Pure]

Hi Pierced,
Of course we don't have to agree, we're just chatting!

I do see your point about Sade, in that he does focuses on the physical.

Yes, there's certainly artistic license.

Sade is not Everyman, just a small sample, but I make these postings so we learn about things and discuss them.

I'm not sure what you mean about the Bible, but yes, a hundred years or so ago, Bowdler did try to 'clean it up'.... Bowdlerize it.

Just like the folks that want to put clothes on 'naked' statues, and, i'm told, cover the legs of pianos, so they wont be indecent.

Mud... hmmm haven't tried it? Any takers out there?

Is sm 'clean' fun or is it, in some way 'dirty'. Does evil add to sexual excitement?

Best,
J.



PB:


I do not have to agree
There is much more to our physical existense than proposed by de Sade.

Clearly we(humans) take aspects of life further than is necessary for survival. There is a considerable range that includes DS practises that is not actually anti social. Feeling and being murderous or anything near this steps over that line. That line for me can be drawn with a lot of artistic licence. There is a lot of head space to explore before brutality becomes acceptable or imaginable-- for me.

To propose that for most it otherwise challenges the boundaries of what I know and I suspect for most people.

At the end of the day de Sade and his ilke are only a microcosm of the whole (written) society over all of time since the bible was Baldlerized (spelling???).

Woody Allen by his own admission is under educated and I treat his assertions with that in mind.

Sex is done right when it is done right and dirt has little to do with it unless you like mud and sex mixed. Then it is dirty fun.

H

 

[rosco rathbone]

Apropos of some discussions of equality, and of a philosophy of this forum, I offer a few excerpts from Beauvoir's famous essay on Sade--somewhat hard to locate outside of major libraries. Simone de Beauvoir ( b. 1908) was a French author and intellectual, partner for many years a partner of J.P. Sartre and a co-founder of French existentialism in the 1940s and 50s. The latter being the period of this essay.

This might be hearsay, but I hear tell that Sartre and Beauvoir had a sexually violent relationship. I think it is very amusing and informative to consider the possibility that the grandmamma of modern feminism was masochistic.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Is sm 'clean' fun or is it, in some way 'dirty'. Does evil add to sexual excitement?

Best,
J.

Yes.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Re: Sade /Beauvoir cruelty

What able bodied man … does not wish to dedevil his ecstasy?”

… According to Rose Keller’s*** testimony, Sade himself “began to shriek very loud and fearfully” before cutting the cords which immobilized his victim. The Vanilla and Manilla letter** proves that he experienced orgasm as if it were an epileptic seizure, something aggressive and murderous, like a fit of rage.
orgasmic pleasure and extreme anger have similar expression.
Sade's orgasm resembled an epileptic seizure.

Genius quote, Pure. This says it all. This is what Topopolis is all about for me.

...something aggressive and murderous, like a fit of rage.
orgasmic pleasure and extreme anger have similar expression...

 

[Pure]

Hi RR,


This might be hearsay, but I hear tell that Sartre and Beauvoir had a sexually violent relationship. I think it is very amusing and informative to consider the possibility that the grandmamma of modern feminism was masochistic.

I've read a couple bios, and haven't seen that, but: Sartre seems to have screwed everything in sight, of the female persuasion. Then, late in life, he legally adopted a fine young piece, to whom he left most everthing, cutting out his lifetime partner and collaborator (Simone d. B.). Now, you might ask, why SdB hung around for decades of such stuff. She didn't herself have that many affairs--the old story of who wants an 'open marriage'. Arguably masochistic, in some sense.

As you may know, her relation with the second wave feminists of the 60s was fairly mixed; they paid mostly lip service to her and her ideas, I gather because she seemed NOT radical enough, and hanging around a man--a man whom she acknowleged was mentally superior--would not help her 'stock'; I think she was a bit bi, however.

I heard from evesdream and she tells of some interesting characters and writings you attracted/gathered together/spawned (as in devil's spawn). Would you like to see something like that here ?
Are you going to explain to MsT that this isn't a city of some interesting subtype of doms, who force their subject to service the homeless. It's a different--agonistic-- philosophy (or philosophies) of sex, not just a different shade of leather on the dom's boots.

 

[vargas]

I heard from evesdream and she tells of some interesting characters and writings you attracted/gathered together/spawned (as in devil's spawn). Would you like to see something like that here ?

Evesdream. Where is that girlie anyway?? Eh?

 

[rosco rathbone]

I mean to set forth my ideas about tops as opposed to doms as soon as I can. I'm not sure what evesdream told you; but I like to be surrounded by intelligent and charismatic perverts.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Evesdream. Where is that girlie anyway?? Eh?

Evesdream appears to be an "ideé fixe" with you.

 

[Pure]

Confusion about "tops"

Waiting for Roscoe to extract Steely Dan's Digit from the local crevice.... and tell about 'tops'

Here is a sampling from the web; it can be seen that many persons use the terms 'dominant' and 'top' interchangeably. (See Def B) Which makes the term 'top' useless. Often, the term is used to indicate control of a scene, as opposed to wider, general control in the relationship. (Def A. and D.) Again, of little help, if not silly.

Some examples:

A'top' in Deviant's Dictionary

Top and its compliment bottom are two terms coined in the last two decades to designate the 'agent' and 'patient' roles respectively in an SM scene while avoiding the loadedness of the existing terms like master-slave; they can be used just in relation to the scene itself and don't imply anything about the participants' regular practice, though they are also used to describe people who typically take one role or the other. Also may not imply role-played domination and submission but just who does what to whom. Confusingly some people associate them with anal intercourse, but it should be remembered that some tops like to get fucked too. A person who alternates both roles, either from scene to scene or within a scene, is known as a switch or switch-hitter.

B
domsub.info
'top' -- A common expression in BDSM for a person who takes on the Dominant role for the duration of a scene. This term is associated with being on the administering end of sadism, bondage, and discipline.

C
tenebein.com
Top/Bottom- Some people use this term to describe simply the doee and the doer. Others use it to describe the SM positions only. Nobody has the definitive answer....

D
Conversio Virium
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cv/services/health/terms.html

top: one who takes control of the activities of a scene; can refer to both physical and psychological play bottom: one who gives over a degree of power to another; can refer to both physical and psychological play dom: one who takes control of the activities of a scene; often refers to a much greater level of psychological play between partners during a scene sub: one who gives over a degree of power to another; often refers to a much greater level of psychological play between partners during a scene

E
mistressjasmine.com
[no 'top' def.]
Bottom:
umbrella term form the person in the scene who takes the submissive, receptive or masochistic role.

=====

 

[rosco rathbone]

I had too much caffeine and sugar today and I got electrocuted yesterday, so I am too shakey to fulfill my belletristical obligations here tonite. But tomorow I shall try to talk about tops and doms and preemies. Until then, Pure, you are in charge of the class.

 

[Pure]

Just some thoughts, before RR talks about ‘top’. Any comments, anyone? We'll focus on doing, action, more than 'dom/sub' labels

Dominate

You dominate someone if your will and desires, to some degree despotically, prevail over another’s. The dominating person, Tyrano , gets the submitting person, Grovela, to do what he wants, as opposed to what she wants.

You control a situation if, from your acts, it’s possible for someone to predict the outcome; You have more control than the other if your acts better predict an outcome (better, on a larger scale or in a longer time frame), than the other person’s.

In a routine situation, generally predictable there is no reason to say either one dominates or controls as opposed to the other. Example: (Friday night is ‘play’ night, and there will be ½ hour amount of whipping, and then 'sub,' Grovela is covered in chocolate and cocoanut, made to place herself at the picture window for the neighborhood to see). This is true, no matter how ‘extreme’:

Grovela, made to go on all fours, at the window, with a carrot sticking out of her ass, and is howling like a wolf . The more detailed the predictable-ness of the situation, the less reason to say one dominates or controls, as opposed to the other. In a detailed routine that keeps happening, there’s no dom/me

Who’s in control, is not easy to answer:

If there is an agreed scene in which Subitha periodically fails to call Despoto ‘exalted doofus’ and is punished accordingly—say by being whipped—then there is as much a case for saying Subitha controls the situation (in the manner of a ‘bad’ child). If Despoto is predictably provoked, and has predictable reactions to the provocations, then Despoto, though ‘Master’, is controlled by Subitha.

If a scene’s limits and activities are specified in detail by Subitha and are agreed to be both ( and those desires are carried out by Despoto), then Subitha is in control. For example, if the manner and quantity of whipping is specified before hand by Subitha (don’t use cane, stick, cat o’ nine, but small leather strands and latex strands are ok). Then Subitha controls. Even more so if Subitha and Despoto are agreed on a safeword for Subitha to use, to stop proceedings.
She says “Cliterama” and he stops. She’s in control.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I've never had a "BDSM" or "play" or "scene-ing" relationship, so I have no idea if the scenarios you propose have any reality to them or are just exaggerated to make a point. "Who is really in charge" is of course widely debated on the internet, which is my only point of contact with this sort of thing.

I think any really controlling person, "top" or "dom", is likely to resist attempts by their partner to manipulate them. The Zipman, who is generally held up here as the very model of a modern caring, sharing dom's dom, agreed with me on this point a while ago. I doubt if the line between top and dom is drawn here.

Personal power and manipulative ability and will to control are, I believe, distributed very unevenly amongst the populace with no regard for sex or psychosexual orientation. In other words, there are some "submissives" who will tend to take over just about anyone. I've known them "here" and in my socalled real life.

There are also plenty of "top" personalities whose fundamental need for a position of control or the appearance-to themselves at least-of control is so great that they will submit to the will of someone who offers to fill this need. These are the people who fascinate me and with whom I identify. When they are un-self-aware, I refer to them as "gnomes" or as "the constituency".

Complicated stuff, Pure. I'm trying to figure out what a top is as opposed to a dom and am getting sucked up a vortex into my own bottom. I must go back and consult my books and my notes. Your commentary and well-chosen deSade quotations are very helpful.

let every word I type be a black arrow through the heart of false domination

rizzco=l;{)

 

[Pure]

rr

Many good points. I'll comment on just one.



I've never had a "BDSM" or "play" or "scene-ing" relationship, so I have no idea if the scenarios you propose have any reality to them or are just exaggerated to make a point. "Who is really in charge" is of course widely debated on the internet, which is my only point of contact with this sort of thing.


Yes, I took 'scenes', but general point is that 'domination' (i prefer action talk) is imposing one's will and desires over another's.

In a chance encounter on the subway, Literato pins Clitemnystra to the wall and fucks her. A little more violently than she had planned. Ergo: domination,

Now, leave aside 'scening' ; if they set that encounter up, as a regular Friday night thing and the details are pretty set and routine, it's impossible to say, now, if there's any dominating happening; no reason to say Literato [edited:] is doing it.

And most relationships to tend to the routine. [Edited:] Does dominating, then always mean (in the manner of a panther) seeking 'fresh meat'?

 

[rosco rathbone]

And most relationships to tend to the routine. Does a dom, then, like a panther, always need 'fresh meat'?

A "dom"? I wouldn't know. A top? Yes.

 

[UCE]

I had too much caffeine and sugar today and I got electrocuted yesterday, so I am too shakey to fulfill my belletristical obligations here tonite. But tomorow I shall try to talk about tops and doms and preemies. Until then, Pure, you are in charge of the class.

Electrolyes and electrocution one after the other! I'm very sorry to hear about that Roscoe. Were you burned badly?

Unda

 

[UCE]

And most relationships to tend to the routine. Does a dom, then, like a panther, always need 'fresh meat'?

Hey Pure,

Long time no talk to. I'm making one of my periodic visits back here.

Pain, in my personal experience, whether recieving or, in my observed expereince of others, when giving, never gets old. Your nerves don't get used to it. Plus, in a commited relationship, new issues about control are always arising.

If the partners in a dominance relationship are stupid dull people, sure the relationship could get routine. But intelligent people tend to choose each other for, among all the usually things, "entertainment value," as in never a dull moment or I'll never figure her out. Entertainment in positive ways too, smart people who know stuff usually don't run out of things to debate, er, I mean talk about.

What I am saying is that if you choose well and if you aren't yourself dull, the relationship doesn't have to become routine, even if you two suffer many hardships that limit what you can do to about 1/100th of what other couples can do. I'm speaking from experience here.

Unda

 

[Pure]

RR said,

//A "dom"? I wouldn't know. A top? Yes.// (needs fresh meat)

But you haven't said what a 'top' is, yet.

As I said, I'm not into labels, the examples are to illustrate my idea of 'dominate.' I've edited the last one, accordingly. Nouns bedevil discourse. Or should I say "nouning"?

J.

 

[UCE]

[BI think any really controlling person, "top" or "dom", is likely to resist attempts by their partner to manipulate them. The Zipman, who is generally held up here as the very model of a modern caring, sharing dom's dom, agreed with me on this point a while ago. {) [/B]

After all these years I still can't tell when you're being sarcastic, Rosco. No modern caring sharing dom's dom that I know of dumps a woman simply because she asks too many questions, which is the vile deed is what Zipman was trying to garner sympathy for when I first entered this forum. A compassionate and understanding dominant will patiently answer a subs questions no matter how many times they were asked, and, if she still doesn't get it, devise different ways, that do not harm her the way abandonment does, to get the point across to her. My dominant does that. But I've known so many little men like zipman who do not. They are a dime a dozen. Only an insecure vanilla-at-heart cretin dumps a woman because she needs to know things that he, due to his own inaqdequacies, has not explained properly. If you're serious about Zipman, he's sure pulled the wool over your eyes, Mr. Roscoe. Although I do agree with one thing, in a place where the sub is always the wrong one, the evil party, the one "responsible (cough cough cough cough cough and lol too) for the breakup of the relationship, a Dom's dom is a good thing to be. In my opinion, however, Zipman is the exact opposite of a "sub's dom." Not only does he lack compassioned, but when politely questioned on any issue, he responds in this most unseemly knee-jerk defensive manor that makes me feel very very grateful that he will never be my dominant. The man has a nasty temper and is not in control of himself or his emotions. None of this makes for good dominance.

Your friendly iconoclast, Unda

BTW Zipman, you're on ignore from way back and ALWAYS will be. Nothing you say is of the least interest to me because it's all wrong and all confused, when you're not self-promoting that is. Blither and blather and foam and fumulgate all you want, get your words quoted by someone else, I don't give a fuck. I still won't read them.

 

[UCE]

Just some thoughts, before RR talks about ‘top’. Any comments, anyone? We'll focus on doing, action, more than 'dom/sub' labels

Dominate

You dominate someone if your will and desires, to some degree despotically, prevail over another’s. The dominating person, Tyrano , gets the submitting person, Grovela, to do what he wants, as opposed to what she wants.

First of all, define "despotic," not some off-the-shelf dictionary definition, PLUEEZE, lol, but how _you_ meant it when you wrote it in that sentence.

I think the word choice is unfortunate because the word has emotional tonations of cruel and arbitrary. A good dominant may "fake" arbritariness to give his submissive a kind of thrill that she craves once in awhile, but every important decision he makes is based upon how it will affect her welfare. She is his property after all, and he takes his property management responsibility dead seriously and with great pride at doing it right. I would have chosen the term "benevolent dictator," for that is what the majority of _real_ dominants (not the online boasters) have reminded me of. I live with a benevolent-dictator-conscientious-property-management type and the security and peace I get from knowing somebody is always selflessly (he is selfless, he can't help it and the selfish can't grok that because they don't think such a person so different from them can exist--right, Roscoe?--but nevertheless it is true) looking after my own best interests is priceless.

Peace,
Unda

PS: Wish I had more time to post. Can't get into a lot of back and forth though, my workload doesn't permit it at this time. So I just want to drop some thoughts in that come from a radically different experience than apparently most people on this forum have. Sometimes when I write shit like the stuff above I feel like a representitive from heaven (note I didn't say angel, lol, I personally don't have the slightest idea what I am doing up there) trying to convince cynical earthmen that only have experience with hell or purgatory that a third option really does exist, lol, and it reminds me of trying to break out of jail by hitting my head against the wall.

 

[UCE]

You control a situation if, from your acts, it’s possible for someone to predict the outcome; You have more control than the other if your acts better predict an outcome (better, on a larger scale or in a longer time frame), than the other person’s.

Shit. Can't resist responding to your second paragraph, either. OK, real fast. Control or lack of it has absolutely nothing to do with predictability. Greater control is not equal to a greater ability to predict the outcome of an act, at least not in a dominant-submissive relationship, which I assume is the overall topic of your message?

To use a gross example, what in the world does a concentration camp inmate's knowledge as he stands in line for the showers, that he's either going to die from being gassed or being shot when he splits the line have to do with his control over whether he lives or dies? He knows absolutely that he is going to die, one way or the other, that day and that knowledge, that ability to accurately predict, has no effect on the outcome of the situation, which he cannot change.

It's the ability to change an outcome, to make something happen that distinguishes dominance over a situation or over a person from non-dominance.

In a dom-sub relationship, the only way you can judge whether the dominant is actually dominanting the submissive is how, in every aspect of their lives, his will is done, his decisions are followed rather than hers. If you live with a person long enough you become able to predict some, although never all of their decisions. You know what your dom will order. Does that knowledge, that ability to predict what he'll order, change your obedience to him? Not in the least if he's done a good job of bringing you under his control. You simply do what he says and the longer you are around him the more you tend to obey him without question or resistance, assuming he's a genuine dominant that is.

In a temporary "scene" or playtime, the dominant's ability to surprise the submissive might have some minor importance, but I don't see why unpredictability or its lack would change her obedience to him. After all, she wanted this scene, she wants to have sexy fun play with him. Why would she spoil it all by being totally resistant to any act she could predict ahead of time?

Regards,
Unda

 

[UCE]

That depends on who "we" know. I'll never kiss and tell.....

An honorable man, to the end.

 

[UCE]

I think I need to leave the forum for tonight.

Between your post, PBW and one or two of my own, I am just getting that urge for some raw, hot, rough sex,.

That is all well and good, but I am sitting here with a cup of coffee in my flannel pj's with the kidlings sleeping in the next room.

*sigh*

Sometimes, it is almost a craving to have a red ass.

Do you ever get that very base, instinctual need for play?

I do, and then I look at some dirty pics online and ask permission to masturbate, lol. (Least anybody get the wrong idea, I'm in one of those situation that seem to abound here where serious health issues ae invovled).

 

[Pure]

Here are three actions, one I already described:

1.
Pure said,

In a chance encounter on the subway, Literato pins Clitemnystra to the wall and fucks her. A little more violently than she had planned. Ergo: domination,

Now, leave aside 'scening' ; if they set that encounter up, as a regular Friday night thing and the details are pretty set and routine, it's impossible to say, now, if there's any dominating happening; no reason to say Literato [edited:] is doing it.

2.

Clitemnystra has noticed the routine, and begins to yearn for some dominating (topping?). She starts to prown the subways at 1 am, and in a couple nights, locks gazes with the belletristic but rather unkempt Feralo, and nature takes its course: Feralo slams her up against the wall of the train and presses against her, knowing she's aware of spectators, is grabbing her ass and, through her tight mini, working the tips of his fingers into the crack of her. And lower. The other passengers seem reluctant to leave, but finally the last get off, and he has her hang by the strap, raise her mini and put one foot up on the subway seat. She pulls her panties aside and he's unzipped and then buried to the hilt in a second. When she leaves finally, a bit shaky in the knees. Knowing what she likes, she tosses aside the slip of paper with Feralo cell phone number, and resolves on a 'fresh prowl.'

Who's dominating this scene, if anyone? Is she 'overall' dominating, in that she organizes this, and follwing prowls?

My opinion, yes. Feralo and his ilk have become her tools, which she uses according to her will, dominating them both overall and in any given scene.

3.

Panthero, however, a jaded denizen of the city is quite familiar with subway sluts, and recognizes one immediately when he catches sight of Clitemnystra. Sensing she's ready for a frontal embrace, he spins her around so that he's at her back, and working her skirt up with one hand. He leaves his hand jammed between her thighs as the spectators watch calmly and she flushes and squirm. "Bend over" he whispers harshly in her ear, and she say, "Not yet" then one hand is on her head, pushing, and she yields. "Fuck me" she says, feeling his fingers shoved into the swampy cunt, but he's just churning them around.
He smears her slime onto her anus and works a slick finger in there. This hasn't happend to her before-- not in front of ten strangers. When two fingers have sufficiently opend her anus, he unzips, and spreads the slippering mess onto his cock. She wasn't entirely open, and there's a momentary stabbing pain that makes her cry out, before she starts moaning. "Help" she says weakly and two sturdy guys come over and grasp her shoulders, steadying her and keeping her bent to receive Panthero's slime.
One opens his fly and gives his cock to her mouth: "Does that help?" He says.